“When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don’t adjust the goals; adjust the action steps.”
Confucius
The purpose of this study is to provide a better understanding of the mentoring relationship in the context of the mandated TAP Evaluation System through the lens of three roles: Master Teacher, Mentor Teacher and classroom teacher within one school district. The selected methodology for this research is a descriptive case study using an interpretivist paradigm. This chapter provides a positionality statement by the researcher and describes the setting of the research, the process of participant selection, data collection procedures, the data analysis process, and timeline of the research. Further, this chapter justifies ethical
considerations and explains the conceivable limitations of the research.
Though potential limitations are discussed throughout the research, it is important to note that an interpreted reality through the lens of multiple participants is no small undertaking. The methodology employed in this research provides a foundation for future research into mentoring relationships in the context of many varied environments. It is equally important to note that because a goal of interpreting one reality for mentoring relationships cannot be achieved, appropriate methodology for future research should be applied given the context of the individual environments.
From Practice to Research: Implementing the TAP Evaluation System When I began my doctoral studies, I was an assistant principal in a high school. In compliance with the evaluation legislation, the district at the time adopted TAP as the mandated evaluation and professional development model. Prior to this, I was both a teacher evaluated
under the Council of Chief State School Officer’s Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards and an administrator evaluating teachers with fewer than five years of experience on the InTASC standards. The standards define ten learning progressions for teachers: Learner Development, Learning Differences, Learning Environments, Content
Knowledge, Application of Content, Assessment, Planning for Instruction, Instructional Strategies, Professional Learning and Ethical Practice and Leadership and Collaboration (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013). I participated in, and led, professional
development activities that were neither systemic nor consistently aligned with topics based on evaluation data from my instructional practices or instructional practices I observed.
As I worked toward my thesis, I began to recognize that the effectiveness of the implementation of this evaluation system rested on classroom teachers working with Master Teachers5 and Mentor Teachers6 toward increased student achievement through efforts designed at mutual professional growth. I believed there were times this was happening in the building, and I knew there were times it was not. I recognized the need to conceptualize elements of the mentoring relationship as it related to effective mentoring models and began to question what aspects of the relationships between people serving in these roles supported the success of implementation of the system and what aspects inhibited success of implementation of the system. I sought out to know how to duplicate mentoring efforts when they had a positive impact on successful mentoring relationships and effective professional development and how to rectify
5 In the TAP system, Master Teacher duties frequently include conducting weekly professional development (Cluster), conducting evaluations of classroom teachers, observing classrooms through follow-up from Cluster and classroom walkthroughs, and analyzing student data. Master Teachers can also be responsible for some direct instruction of students.
6 In the TAP system, Mentor Teachers continue with direct instruction of students and frequently receive some release time and a stipend for conducting evaluations of classroom teachers, observing classrooms through follow-
mentoring efforts when they might have an inhibitive impact on mentoring relationships and effective professional development.
Research Questions
This research explores the nature of the mentoring relationship between Master Teacher, Mentor Teacher and classroom teacher in the context of a peer-review evaluation system and mandated professional development. The following research questions will guide this study.
1. What elements of mentoring do Master, Mentor and classroom teachers in Sage Township experience in the context of mandated professional development and evaluation?
2. In the context of mandated professional development and evaluation, what aspects of the mentoring model in Sage Township do Master, Mentor and classroom teachers perceive to support or inhibit the mentoring relationship?
Research Design
A case study is the best method to answer the research questions because the purpose of case study research focuses on behavior and perceptions within a specific context. Yin (2013) categorizes case studies as explanatory, exploratory, or descriptive and differentiates between single, holistic case studies and multiple-case studies. Explanatory case studies seek to explain the presumed causal links in situations or interventions that are too complex for survey or experimental strategies. Findings would seek to link program implementation with program effects. Exploratory case studies explore situations in which an intervention being evaluated has no clear, single set of outcomes. Descriptive case studies describe an intervention or
phenomenon and the context in which it occurred (Yin, 2013). The research design is a
descriptive case study exploring aspects of a single phenomenon: the perception of the mentoring relationship between professionals in the context of the implementation of the TAP Evaluation System within one school district. Thus, the case was not Sage Township as a school district but was the teacher participants involved with the TAP Evaluation System within Sage Township. Exploring the Master, Mentor and classroom teachers’ perceptions in Sage will allow for a single-set of cross-case conclusions related to mentoring (Yin, 2014).
The study collected data using direct observations and semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection method. Interviews and observations are often used within case study research to capture participants’ perceptions of the phenomena being studied (Creswell, 2012). Bogdan and Biklen (2006) employ an analogy of ‘the funnel’ for the design of a case study. The study begins in the wide end, where the researcher scouts for the location and participants that might serve as data sources. As the study progresses, the researcher looks for clues as to how to proceed with data collection, who to interview, and what aspects of the participants’ experiences to explore in depth (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). The researcher continually modifies the design and procedures as more is learned about the topic of study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006).
The researcher is the data collection mechanism in qualitative research (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). The rationale for using qualitative research with interviews as one of the primary data collection method is that interviews are often the most effective method through which the researcher can explore the interpretations that participants ascribe to experiences they have had (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). Observations were also a primary data collection method because it permitted the researcher to examine the teachers in their natural settings (Creswell, 2012) as they worked under the TAP Evaluation System.
The study was conducted in three distinct phases. Table 3 below summarizes the
participants, research method(s), and purpose of each phase. The first phase included interviews with the principals of the buildings within the district followed by observations of Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) meetings and Cluster. The purpose of the first phase was to identify participants for the study. During the second phase, Master Teachers, Mentor Teachers and classroom teachers participated in semi-structured interviews and were further observed during ILT (in elementary schools) and Cluster (in all schools) with the intent to interpret the
experiences of the participants in the context of a mentoring relationship within the mandated evaluative system. During the third phase, follow-up, semi-structured interviews were conducted for the purpose of sharing the collective interpretation of data from prior interviews and
observations. Follow-up interviews were designed to validate conclusions and were
individualized based on participant’s feedback. Though member checking was not the primary purpose of the third phase of research, it provided a process through which a systematic check of validity was interrogated by sharing the initial data and interpretations with participants for endorsement (Creswell, 2013). In this follow-up interview, participants in the study were also asked follow-up questions to provide further clarification as it related to the research.
Additionally, any deviations from the interpretivist process of data analysis were explored with the intent to validate interpretations of the participants’ perspectives on aspects of the mentoring relationship that supported or inhibited professional growth. The section below delves deeper into the research design and methods of individual phases.
Table 3
Phases of Research Methodology
First Principals
Five interviews (two elementary, two middle school,
and one high school), Five observations of ILT (two elementary, two middle school,
and one high school), and Five observations of Cluster (two elementary, two middle school, and one high school)
Gather data about the school, observe context of mentoring activities, identify participants
Second
Master, Mentor and classroom
teachers
Nine interviews (three Master Teacher, three Mentor Teacher,
and three classroom teacher), Two observations of ILT (two
elementary), and Five observations of Cluster (two elementary, two middle school, and one high school)
Gather data on and interpret mentoring experiences
Third
Master, Mentor and classroom
teachers
Nine follow up interviews (three Master Teacher, three
Mentor Teacher, and three classroom teacher),
Using interpretations of data collected from second phase of research, ask follow up
questions for clarity
Methods
Setting and Data Collection. Sage Township, a midwestern school district in the suburbs of a metropolis, was selected because of the adoption of TAP as a state-mandated evaluation system during the 2011-12 school year. Though a few districts in the area employ TAP as the evaluation system, Sage Township was the most recent district to adopt the TAP evaluation system in the area. Additionally, the size and diversity of Sage Township, as a district with sister high schools, offers access to various people in the role of Master Teacher, Mentor Teacher and classroom teacher.
Case study research allows for the use of multiple data sources, a strategy which enhances data credibility (Yin, 2003; Yin, 2014). As noted, data sources included in this case study are direct observations and semi-structured interviews. Direct observation is used in case study research as a method through which the researcher is detached rather than taking part; the observer strives to not become a participant in the context of the environment so as not to bias the observations (Yin, 2013).
The first phase of interviews of principals and observations of ILT and Cluster meetings occurred in all buildings in the early-to-mid Spring of 2017. Initial interviews of participants and additional observations of ILT and Cluster during the second phase of the study occurred in the mid Spring through Summer of 2017. Follow-up interviews of participants during the third phase of the study occurred in the Winter of 2017 through the Spring of 2018.
During the first phase of this case study, semi-structured interviews with the building principals were used for the purpose of gathering context surrounding mentoring relationships in the school and identifying participants. As will be explained, during this phase I sought to
identify potential participants through the principal’s perspective as it encompasses the system as a whole. Though Master, Mentor and classroom teacher participants were noted, I focused during this phase on identifying Master Teachers as in the second phase interviews, Master Teachers would also be used to corroborate identified Mentor and classroom teachers. Subsequently, Mentor Teachers and classroom teachers were asked to identify potential participants for the purpose of corroborating overall participant selection. The interviews of the first phase occurred with the principals of two elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school and lasted no more than one hour. The two elementary schools were selected as they are fully
Both of the districts’ middle schools were included in the study. The one high school was selected due to my previous employment in the other high school. The secondary buildings employed, and utilized, Mentor Teachers in various capacities, which will be explored in the findings of this study.
The direct observation of the first phase also included Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) and Cluster meetings, which frequently occur weekly. The purpose of ILT meetings is to engage Master and Mentor Teachers in professional development experiences and to plan Cluster. Clusters are structured, weekly meetings led by Master Teachers, in conjunction with Mentor Teachers, for classroom teachers. Data were collected during the first phase of the study in an observation of five ILTs and five Clusters: one ILT and Cluster in each elementary, middle and high school. ILT observations lasted between one and two hours. Observations of Cluster in each building lasted no more than an hour. Because the purpose of this case study is grounded in mentoring relationships in the context of mandated evaluation and professional development, research was limited to direct observation of these two settings rather than observation of the entire context.
As the purpose of the first phase of the case study was to gather contextual data about professional development, evaluation, and mentoring relationships in the building as well as to identify possible participants using recommendation from the principal of the building, I
recorded and transcribed observations and interviews and noted specific contextual observations and specific names of potential participants. For example, ILT meetings were observed for the purpose of collecting contextual data surrounding mentoring relationships from the perspective of Master and Mentor Teachers. As all teachers are required to participate in Cluster meetings, Clusters were observed for the purpose of collecting contextual data surrounding mentoring
relationships from the perspective of classroom teachers. These observations informed me of routines, expectations, and interactions between participants in these two professional
development settings in which mentoring conversations occurred and mentoring relationships were developed.
All semi-structured interviews and observations in the first phase were recorded and transcribed. The coding of the data collected is discussed in a following section. The questions below guided the interviews of the first phase of research.
First Phase – Principal Interviews
The semi-structured interviews in the first phase of the case study with principals were guided by the following questions:
• Describe the evaluation and professional development system in the building before the implementation of TAP.
• How has TAP been implemented in the building?
• How has TAP been received in the building by classroom teachers, Mentor Teachers and Master Teachers?
• How has the role of Master/Mentor Teacher as evaluator, mentor, and leader of professional development been received in the building?
• Please identify some classroom teachers, Mentor Teachers, and Master Teachers who come to mind when you consider their perceptions of the TAP evaluation system as either supporting or inhibiting their professional growth.
During the first phase of the study, I used an observation instrument that allowed me to identify key conceptual elements of the mentoring model as well as supportive and inhibitive aspects of the mentoring relationship. This same observation instrument was used during subsequent observations in the second and third phase of the study.
The second phase of the case study included additional observations of ILT and Cluster as well as semi-structured interviews with identified participants: three Master Teachers, three Mentor Teachers and three classroom teachers. As noted, participants were identified based initially on my interviews with the five building principals and observations of ILT and Cluster during the first phase of the study.
During the second phase of the case study, one ILT observation was conducted in each elementary school and Cluster observations were conducted in all five schools. Additional ILT observations occurred only in elementary schools during the second phase because these were the only schools in which Mentor Teachers participated in ILT meetings. ILT observations lasted between one and two hours. Observations of Cluster in each building lasted no more than an hour. These observations assisted in answering my research questions because the professional development activities in which mentoring occurs in these settings are crucial to understanding the scope of the mentoring relationships.
The nine interviews with participants supplied the crux of data collected during the second phase of research. These interviews were used to explore the interpretations that participants ascribe to experiences they have had relating to mentoring relationships in the context of mandated professional development and peer-review evaluation. All semi-structured interviews and observations in the second phase were recorded and transcribed. Interviews lasted no more than an hour and were conducted in a comfortable setting, determined by the
participant. The coding of the data collected is discussed in a following section. The questions below guided the interviews of the second phase of research.
Second Phase – Master Teacher, Mentor Teacher and Classroom Teacher Interviews
The semi-structured interviews in the second phase of the case study with Master, Mentor and classroom teachers were guided by the following questions:
• Tell me about your teaching experiences (years of experience, subjects taught, schools in which you’ve worked).
• How are experiences in Cluster and the conversations associated with evaluation similar to what happened before with professional development and evaluation? How does it differ?
• I have been observing your ILT and/or Cluster for some time, but imagine that I have never been to an ILT/Cluster meeting before. Could you describe to me your role in ILT/Cluster, and what the goal of ILT/Cluster is?
• Describe a Cluster that went particularly well for you. • Describe a Cluster that frustrated you.
• Describe a conversation you had with another teacher about Cluster or an evaluation experience.
• How do you feel about what you do during Cluster?
• Can you think of a time during which you were either planning or instructing students that you implemented a Cluster strategy? Describe it.
• Describe your mentoring and evaluative relationships with classroom, Mentor and/or Master Teachers? Tell me about a time when you gave feedback to a classroom/Mentor/Master Teacher.
• Describe to me how you prepare for Cluster (specifically for Mentor and Master Teachers).
• How does the relationship between Master/Mentor Teacher and classroom teacher contribute to:
o The teacher’s planning practices? o The teacher’s instructional practices? o The teacher’s assessment practices?
o The teacher’s use of data in the classroom?
o The teacher’s positive relationships with students? o The teacher’s classroom management practices?
• Is there anything related to mentoring relationships, professional development, or the peer-review evaluation system implementation in this school that we haven’t talked about and that you’d like to tell me?
The third phase of the case study included participant interviews and additional interpretive analysis of the data. During the third phase of the study, nine semi-structured interviews were again conducted with participants: three Master Teachers, three Mentor Teachers and three classroom teachers. Interviews lasted no more than an hour and were